Voluntary
posted in General |VOLUNTARY
The verbal warfare over the Social Security issue still rages with no end in sight. However, more and more knowledgeable people are speaking out and opining, so there is a chance that John Q Public will be better and better informed as time passes. Even at this relatively early stage of debate, it is clear that the Democrats are deeply concerned about the “ownership” aspects of the program advanced by President Bush.
A key element of Bush's proposal is to create private savings accounts for those who wish to invest a portion of their social security taxes in mutual funds or bond funds. Very clearly, investing in these private savings accounts would be voluntary. No one would be compelled to have 4-5% (or any part) of their tax contributions invested in this fashion. So we might ask ourselves a simple question. Why should the Democrats violently oppose a program that is voluntary? Is there risk? Of course there is. There is risk in anything. Absent reform of the Social Security System, there is a huge risk in retirees getting the scheduled benefits 20-30 years from now. Nothing is risk free.
Let's concede that the Democrats very strongly oppose tampering with a system that is a bedrock foundation under their welfare state politics. And also concede that Social Security is the legacy of Franklin D Roosevelt and the New Deal which has been passed down to current leaders from their statist ancestors. Even so, why should they object to a change that is voluntary. Not mandatory, voluntary. Do they believe that ordinary Americans are too dumb to invest their own funds and watch them grow? Don't they understand that most Americans are familiar with Savings Accounts, CDs, stocks, bonds, IRAs, 401Ks etc etc ?
I think their real concern is that folks who would invest in the private savings accounts would get up in the morning and turn to the Financial page in the newspaper instead of the Sports page. These hard working people would be able to measure their relative gains week by week and month by month. In short, they would turn into mini-capitalists who rely on investments instead of Federal payments. Is that bad??
When I run into those who oppose the Bush proposals, I ask a simple question — what is wrong with a VOLUNTARY choice? Why not let the people choose? Most people understand that establishing the voluntary private savings accounts will not rescue the Social Security System and restore fiscal balance to a program headed for disaster. But the PSAs are a distinct benefit to individual citizens. Why not give them a choice?
I am still looking for a lucid answer from my friends on the left. None so far.